Six Arguments Against ‘Ought Implies Can’

Southwest Philosophy Review 36 (1):45-54 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Opponents of ‘ought implies can’ (OIC) often proceed via cases or counterexamples; hypothetical situations are described in which one is unable to do what one intuitively ought to do. I proceed differently. I offer six arguments against OIC via general principles; no cases. Though each argument would suffice to refute OIC if sound, redundancy is always a failsafe.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,865

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-04-23

Downloads
108 (#196,749)

6 months
18 (#160,410)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jonah Goldwater
William & Mary

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references